Quote:Absolutely agree. But you still have to compare the benefit of ending the war on drugs to the cost to society of ending the war on drugs. It won't all be beneficial. There would probably be an increase in addiction. And since you are against big government, I assume you would probably also oppose the government setting up treatment programs for all the addicts that are created by legalized drugs.
Why should I pay to save people from themselves? That whole idea is what's wrong with where our society is going. Paternalism is tyranny and has no place in a free society no matter how nice it might be.
Quote:Why should I pay to save people from themselves? That whole idea is what's wrong with where our society is going. Paternalism is tyranny and has no place in a free society no matter how nice it might be.
You're not just saving them from themselves. You're also saving yourself from them. I don't want a whole bunch of additional drug addicts because that would affect my life in a very negative way. So, if you don't want to do it for them, do it for yourself.
Quote:You're not just saving them from themselves. You're also saving yourself from them. I don't want a whole bunch of additional drug addicts because that would affect my life in a very negative way. So, if you don't want to do it for them, do it for yourself.
We have a mechanism for that, its called prison. Same with this rioting, had they been arrested, dispersed, shot it wouldve been over. Instead they were coddled and you get a mess.
Quote:We have a mechanism for that, its called prison. Same with this rioting, had they been arrested, dispersed, shot it wouldve been over. Instead they were coddled and you get a mess.
I think you must have misunderstood what we were talking about.
What we were talking about was ENDING the war on drugs. If you want to continue it, that's a whole different thing. I was saying that if we want to end the war on drugs, we will have to somehow deal with a whole lot more drug addicts.
Quote:I think you must have misunderstood what we were talking about.
What we were talking about was ENDING the war on drugs. If you want to continue it, that's a whole different thing. I was saying that if we want to end the war on drugs, we will have to somehow deal with a whole lot more drug addicts.
Ending the war on drugs has nothing to do with not prosecuting other criminal behavior, even if they were on drugs when they did the crime. The two have nothing to do with each other.
Quote:Ending the war on drugs has nothing to do with not prosecuting other criminal behavior, even if they were on drugs when they did the crime. The two have nothing to do with each other.
The ultimate question is, is it more cost-effective to deal with drug addicts when they commit other crimes, to fill up our jails with them, or to try to prevent them becoming drug addicts in the first place? That's the question that has to be answered. And that's what I was saying in the first place. If we want to end the war on drugs, we will have to deal with additional drug addicts. Throw them in jail? Put them in treatment programs? Educate our children about the dangers of drugs? When you remove a barrier to taking drugs- the fact that they are illegal- then you will have additional drug addicts and you will have to deal with them somehow.
What I am trying to say is, ending the war on drugs doesn't just have benefits. It has costs as well.
Quote:The ultimate question is, is it more cost-effective to deal with drug addicts when they commit other crimes, to fill up our jails with them, or to try to prevent them becoming drug addicts in the first place? That's the question that has to be answered. And that's what I was saying in the first place. If we want to end the war on drugs, we will have to deal with additional drug addicts. Throw them in jail? Put them in treatment programs? Educate our children about the dangers of drugs? When you remove a barrier to taking drugs- the fact that they are illegal- then you will have additional drug addicts and you will have to deal with them somehow.
What I am trying to say is, ending the war on drugs doesn't just have benefits. It has costs as well.
Yeah, cause the war on drugs is doing a
great job at stopping them from becoming addicts. Right now we're jailing not just drug addicts, but people who use drugs responsibly as well. We already jail people who do other crimes, regardless of if they were on drugs (or alcohol for that matter, and we don't ban alcohol). We also already educate people on the danger of drugs.
The 'legal' barrier doesn't really matter much. People who want to get high, are going to get high. Heck, people get high off of every day stuff when they can't get drugs. They get high off of Nutmeg.
I also have to question how you can encourage responsible use, when it's against the law to do it in the first place. Responsible use is something we should be teaching.
Also how likely are people with problems to get help, when the drug is illegal and they hide the fact from most people who would actually try to get them help because it's illegal?
And some of these drugs were legal at some point. Yet, we didn't have a major problem then.
For the most part, drug abuse is a public health problem, not a criminal justice problem. One recent study of California's Prop. 36, which mandates treatment for up to 3 non-violent drug offenses, showed the state saves $2300 per offender when put into treatment instead of incarceration.
The problem is when the state saves money, somebody is losing money. Therein lies the rub, and why the obvious choice is so often ignored.
Quote:For the most part, drug abuse is a public health problem, not a criminal justice problem. One recent study of California's Prop. 36, which mandates treatment for up to 3 non-violent drug offenses, showed the state saves $2300 per offender when put into treatment instead of incarceration.
The problem is when the state saves money, somebody is losing money. Therein lies the rub, and why the obvious choice is so often ignored.
It's interesting to me the argument of "why should I help someone with my money" comes from people that are just fine with using their money to uncarcerate the people they dont want to help.
I read this today and just had to share..
Today, I will not answer the radio call that your boyfriend has come home
drunk and is beating you again. Today I will not answer the radio call
that your 16 year old daughter, who is very responsible, is four hours
late coming home from school. Today
I will not answer the radio call that your store has been robbed or
your house has been burglarized. Today I will not stop a drunk driver
from killing someone. I will not catch a rapist or a murderer or a car
thief. Today I will not answer the radio call that a man has a gun or
tried to abduct a child or that someone has been stabbed or has been in a
terrible accident. Today I will not save your child that you locked in a
car or the child you were to busy to watch who went outside and fell
into the swimming pool, but that I revived. No, today I will not do
that.
Why?
Because Today I was killed by a drunk driver while I was helping push a
disabled car off the highway. Today I was shot and killed during a
routine traffic stop to simply tell someone that they had a taillight
out. Today I was killed in a traffic accident rushing to help a citizen.
Today I was shot and killed serving a warrant on a known drug dealer.
Today I was killed by a man when I came by to do a welfare check because
his family was to busy. Today I was killed trying to stop a bank
robbery or a grocery store robbery. Today I was killed doing my job.
A chaplain and an officer will go to a house and tell a mom and dad or a
wife or husband or a child that their son or daughter or husband or wife
or father or mother won’t be coming home today. The flags at many
police stations were flown at half-mast today but most people won’t know
why. There will be a funeral and my fellow officers will come, a
twenty-one-gun salute will be given, and taps will be played as I am
laid to rest. My name will be put on a plaque, on a wall, in a building,
in a city somewhere. A folded flag will be placed on a mantel or a
bookcase in a home somewhere and a family will mourn.
There
will be no cries for justice. There will be no riots in the streets.
There will be no officers marching, screaming “no justice, no peace.” No
citizens will scream that something must be done. No windows will be
smashed, no cars burned, no stones thrown, no names called. Only someone
crying themselves to sleep tonight will be the only sign that I was
cared about.
I was a police officer."
Unknown........
Quote:It's interesting to me the argument of "why should I help someone with my money" comes from people that are just fine with using their money to uncarcerate the people they dont want to help.
Criminals. Stop excusing their behavior.
Quote:1 like equals 1 save?
Take it how you like, all I did was share it
I'd be OK with ending the War on Drugs if they impose more strict punishments for all other crimes. It's very common for meth-addicted, crack-addicted, and those that have habits to routinely break into homes and commit all sorts of thefts to fund these habits. Drugs very often have more than one victim. I don't care what people do to themselves if the consequence of their actions actually include something people wouldn't want to get caught doing twice.
At the moment, most people usually gets probation with time-served and they're back out doing the same thing the following week.
Quote:You're not just saving them from themselves. You're also saving yourself from them. I don't want a whole bunch of additional drug addicts because that would affect my life in a very negative way. So, if you don't want to do it for them, do it for yourself.
But you're assuming that if drugs are legalized, drug use will increase. We know that not to be the case in Amsterdam where the amount of people who smoke pot per 100,000 is less then it is here in the US. It had the opposite effect of what you stated above.
Granted, that doesn't prove my point with all drugs, but I do think education, drug treatment programs and looking at things scientifically are much more productive then throwing drug users in the slammer. US is #1 in the world with the amount of citizens in prison and #2 in the world in prison population rate. If it ain't working, it ain't working.
Quote:I'd be OK with ending the War on Drugs if they impose more strict punishments for all other crimes. It's very common for meth-addicted, crack-addicted, and those that have habits to routinely break into homes and commit all sorts of thefts to fund these habits. Drugs very often have more than one victim. I don't care what people do to themselves if the consequence of their actions actually include something people wouldn't want to get caught doing twice.
At the moment, most people usually gets probation with time-served and they're back out doing the same thing the following week.
Something I could agree with (generally speaking).
Quote:Absolutely agree. But you still have to compare the benefit of ending the war on drugs to the cost to society of ending the war on drugs. It won't all be beneficial. There would probably be an increase in addiction. And since you are against big government, I assume you would probably also oppose the government setting up treatment programs for all the addicts that are created by legalized drugs.
That's correct right or wrong I take a very Darwinistic approach to society let the stupid kill themselves off.
I believe in liberty so long as it comes with equal responsibility you have the right to do coke in your own home if you want but don't expect me to pick up the tab when your dying from it.
Quote:You're not just saving them from themselves. You're also saving yourself from them. I don't want a whole bunch of additional drug addicts because that would affect my life in a very negative way. So, if you don't want to do it for them, do it for yourself.
The assumption you are making is that without laws most of society isn't smart enough to avoid narcotics. I disagree the uptick in usage especially hard drugs is minimal at best, people using hard narcotics don't care if it's legal or not.
Quote:I'd be OK with ending the War on Drugs if they impose more strict punishments for all other crimes. It's very common for meth-addicted, crack-addicted, and those that have habits to routinely break into homes and commit all sorts of thefts to fund these habits. Drugs very often have more than one victim. I don't care what people do to themselves if the consequence of their actions actually include something people wouldn't want to get caught doing twice.
At the moment, most people usually gets probation with time-served and they're back out doing the same thing the following week.
I'm all for taken the hands off thieves I hate a thief